Subject: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:49:26 +0000
Hi Peter,
Before the rhetoric gets too heavy, let me go ahead and thank you for your
critical feedback. I like to test my arguments by letting the experts take
swings at it.
== Yes, George, you are correct. All language can be metaphorical, and it
is hard if not impossible to prove that a particular instance is not.
But you're the one claiming metaphor, therefore you're the one with the
burden of proof. You can't expect everyone to just take it for granted that
it is metaphor on your say-so, and use their inability to prove it isn't as
evidence that it is. This is logically fallacious argumentum. One might as
well accuse his neighbor of beating his dead wife, and then expect him to
disprove the charge.
== I am not sure that Kevin could in principle prove his assertion.
I'm simply refusing to be taken with ad hoc explanations that would make no
sense to the authors of the text. Especially given that there appears to be
no reason, aside from theological, to assume metaphor must be the backdrop
for every anthropomorphic verse. Again, can you explain the metaphorical
meaning behind these so-called metaphors? Even if it refers to simply
"back," How can a non-three-dimensional object have a front or back?
== That makes his argument baseless speculation. On the other hand, it may
be that he can find ways to back up his assertion, so I want to give him the
opportunity to do that.
Thank you. :)
== But he certainly needs to give better arguments than "the Ancient mind
did not think so abstractly... they were incapable of it".
Oh, come off it Peter(grin). You know my argument is not based on that! This
was only a minor point which I never would have mentioned if I knew you'd
read so much into it that wasn't there. Racism? Good grief. The Ancient
culture represented one race. That's news to me.
== Well, for a different interpretation of the ANE evidence, I looked at
the article "Form, Image" by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen
This is an old view that has been refuted by Westermann, though it remains
popular among conservatives. If one wants to dabble into the ANE for help,
they must deal with all of the ANE evidence, not just the parts that they
can use to support their argument. Westermann deals with the prehistory
traditions, most of which refer to the creation of mankind after the literal
image of a deity.
== The nonphyisical resemblance of image and object represented should be
kept in mind. ANE modes of representation are highly metaphoric and
symbolic. Thus, the same Egyptian god can appear as a human figure, in the
form of a hieroglyph, or as an animal, and queen Hatsepsut can be the image
of a male deity (cf. Clines, 72-73). Thus, the image of the god is not a
matter of physical resemblance, but of power and prerogative, often
connected with expressions like "under the feet" (Lichtheim, AEL 2:36-37;
cf. Ps 8:6b).
Leeuwen doesn't explain the fact that in the Egyptian royalty motif, only
the King or one of his priests were ever described as being in "the image of
God." Further, the fact is the King adorned himself with regalia in an
attempt to make himself look like a physical representation of the deity.
For what purpose? Because he was the image of God of course. Likewise, so
did the priests. Now is this just a coincidence, and we're supposed to
assume physical likeness had nothing to do with Egyptian concept of the
image of god? Westermann doesn't buy it, and neither do I. Neither does von
Rad. Further, this explanation assumed Moses was applying the phrase "image
of God" according to the Egyptian usage. Why? The Egyptian usage confines it
to a select few, while Moses applies it to humanity as a whole. There are
significant differences that make it unlikely that Moses was at all
interested in keeping with a theological congruence with Egyptian usage.
== And Clines can hardly be rejected as a fringe scholar - the specific
article referred to is "The Image of God in Man", TynBul 19, 1968, 53-103.
I agree. Do you realize that Clines' method, while agreeing with the
typical and popular theological conclusion, conflicts with the blase
treatment of anthropos via "metaphor"? Here are some snippets from Clines:
"Anthropomorphic language is not some element in the biblical texts for
which excuses have to be made, or a network of metaphors that must be
reduced to plain language, but part of the biblical apprehension of God. It
is to be evaluated, not negatively as accommodation to human language or
divine condescension to human understanding, but positively, as a vital
element of our knowledge of God."(David J.A. Clines On the Way to the
Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Volume 2 (JSOTSup, 292;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 498-507)
The greatest thing about Clines is that he comes right out and admits:
"If one begins from the philological evidence, the image is defined in
physical terms. If we begin from the incorporeality of God, the image cannot
include the human body. If we begin with the Hebrew conception of human
nature as a unity, we cannot separate, in such a fundamental sentence about
humanity, the spiritual part of humanity from the physical."
Thus, he begins, not with the philological evidence (scholarship), but
rather the incorporeality of God (theology). Even though he draws a
conclusion, he is not adamant about it being the most probable case. He
often refers to the plausibility of my view. Listen to some of his other
remarks:
"There is no denying that God is recurrently spoken of in the Old Testament
as if he were a human being: parts of the human body, such as hands, eyes,
ears, are attributed to him, as also physical actions such as laughing,
smelling, whistling; he is also spoken of as feeling the emotions of hatred,
anger, joy, regret. Such anthropomorphisms cannot easily be dismissed as
merely metaphors,since everywhere else in the ancient Near East these terms
were understood to be literally true of the gods...it might be possible that
Yahweh could have a form, though it remained hidden from the eyes of humans.
Ezek. 1.26 would suggest this: 'Seated above the likeness of a throne was a
likeness as it were of a human form'. G. von Rad comments on this statement:
'The light-phenomenon of the "glory of God" clearly displays human
contours.'..We may conclude that, even in the more metaphorical uses of µlx
and its cognate O(s,.)almu, the idea of physical shape and form is present.
No example remotely matches the meaning µlx would have in Gen. 1.26 if it
referred there to God's spiritual qualities or character, according to the
pattern of which humanity has been made. It is possible that we should have
here a vivid metaphor unparalleled elsewhere, but the linguistic evidence
would suggest that it is most unlikely that µlx means anything here but a
form, figure, object, whether three- or two-dimensional."
I greatly admire Clines. I've corresponded with him in the past.
== I suggest you read the Clines article referred to above.
I suspect I've probably read more Clines material than anyone here. I'm a
fan, even though I don't agree with all his conclusions.
== I would suggest that almost every language in the world, including
Hebrew and English, uses the same word e.g. "back" both for the literal rear
part of a person or object and in metaphorical senses referring to such
concepts as coming after or following a person or object. Similarly God's
hand is a regular, almost frozen and dead metaphor for God's power.
I'll take that as a no? That you cannot demonstrate, but merely imply, that
the Hebrew in this instance was used elsewhere to refer to something that
didn't really have a "behind"? Moses said God had backparts. He also
mentions his Hand. Mark Smith, who is a leading expert in ANE material,
suggests this verse implies that God's hand is gigantic, in conformity with
the ancient view that Yahweh had a gigantic form. You still haven't dealt
with the fact that the Bible refers to Yahweh's "form" twice, in unambiguous
terms. It also describes the throne room for Yahweh. The dimensions of the
throne itself (as detailed in scripture) suggests a being of gigantic size
would be using it.
Further, the fact that the LXX suffered major anti-anthropomorphic
redactions is an indication that the Jews of Alexandria didn't think the
apologetic you're offering now, would fly. And for good reason too. The
anthropomorphisms said something very concrete about God, and the redactors
decided to do away with them instead of trying to explain them away.
According to David Clines, Anthropomorphisms have long been an
embarrassment to Jews and Christians alike. Already in the second century
bce, the Septuagint translators removed many of the anthropomorphisms of the
Hebrew Bible. Bruce Metzger makes a similar observation, reporting that,
Anthropomorphisms are toned down, and that such modifications were too
frequent and remarkable to be ascribed merely to chance. The examples are
so plentiful that Fritsch decided to write an entire book about them called
The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch. Seems like much ado
about nothing, if what yous ay is true, and these anthropomorphisms were
merely metaphors.